I suppose I should have pointed out IANALE (either)--hopefully readers will take any/. mouth-shooting with a grain of appropriate seasoning.
Your suggestion is excellent--I think removing this ambiguity would be a good addition to the FDL. And making this addition would affect the previous works under discussion since you can usually use a later version of an FSF license. It's a far better suggestion than "scrap all documentation released under the FDL."
But if you want to copy a bunch of someone else's manual into your own, surely it isn't "onerous" (term used by the poster to whom I replied) to include the invariant section? "A bunch" in this case meaning "more than is covered by fair use."
And whether a page or two would constitute fair use depends in part on the size of manual. One page of a two-page manual certainly isn't fair use. A page of a 500-page technical manual probably is. Of course there's a gray area there in the middle somewhere, but if we relax and try to act reasonably, it doesn't seem a real problem to me.
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.)
and:
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections...
The FDL doesn't cancel existing fair use doctrine--in general short excerpting or commenting on a copyrighted work is fine, just as you can quote a book in a review of it. If the excerpt's not short (namely if you are copying large parts of the manual) then I think it's reasonable to have to include invariant sections. Elsewhere on this thread I pointed out that excising something can change the meaning of the whole just as modifying something can.
A third solution for your excerpting would be to incorporate the other manual by reference ("see section 12 of the GNU make manual") or whatever.
Not to put words in your mouth, but I anticipate an objection on the basis: "who's to know what fair use is?" There is a FAQ on fair use that helps, but the fact is that fair use is based on judgment, not absolute rule.
You know as well as I that the intent and purpose of a manual, book, document or article can be changed by excision as well as modification. If I wrote a piece of software, and I decided to use a non-OO methodology (because I think it's wrong for the task, maybe even any task), and included my justification in the manual as an invariant section, I would have a problem with a downstream distributor removing it. And I think I, not someone else, gets to decide which parts are essential. The meaning of the reference changes because the obvious question "Why isn't this a class?" isn't answered.
Since my example is far more likely than yours (and let's not forget that such a thing would be libel and subject to remedy in ways having nothing to do with the FDL) it seems like the right place to draw the line.
You'll see that the FSF is concerned with free documentation as well. The problem here is that some people are misunderstanding the invariant section provision of the FDL. As stated in that link, not every piece of writing is the same thing as software. The FDL insists that all the technical instructions be freely modifiable so that someone who creates a derivative piece of software can also modify the manual to keep it accurate.
However, some parts of a manual might be literary or express an author's opinion. This might be a political opinion ("software should be free") or it could be a technical opinion ("monolithic kernels suck"). But whatever it is it doesn't make sense for the creator of a derivative manual to change those opinions--that would be lying about the original author's intent.
The FDL recognizes that an author may have the need to guard these sections (remember, they can't have anything to do with the instructions to use the program). It doesn't make the manual any less free.
Of course. Look, if you write an article that says "I don't think you should use Microsoft software because they don't provide freedom to users," it doesn't make sense that someone else can create a "derivative" article that says "I think you should use Microsoft software because who cares about software freedom anyway?" The invariant sections we're talking about fall into that category, they are like articles--they can't be part of the technical instructions to use the software.
The FDL has this provision because it recognizes that not every kind of writing is the same as software, or the strict instructions to use the software. Documentation isn't any less free because you can't put position words in my mouth.
Re:A (hopefully) unbiased opinion on Perl v. Pytho
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
Well, relocating all the logic into a dozen separate function calls doesn't necessarily help readability either--sometimes you want to see a bit of sequential logic. There was some of that going on, and a couple of large here-documents.
But of course I'm not claiming that the problem can't be solved or even that there's anything wrong with Python, just that the poster was clearly baiting people with the claim that Perl coders don't like Python's indenting-based blocks because it doesn't allow them to write ugly code, which is clearly an insult.
I appreciate your offer to write some code for me though:)
Re:A (hopefully) unbiased opinion on Perl v. Pytho
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
Now Python on the other hand is almost completely a different story. It's supremely orthagonal and elegant in its design, with support for functions as first-class types, an enforcement of clean coding standards through whitespace sensitivity (most Perl coders object vehemently to this because it infringes on their ability to write really ugly code), etc.
Sorry, but this is just baiting. My problem with a lack of block endings is that it makes it hard to see a complete or incomplete block when there is a large one--this is not a theoretical problem but one I've faced more than once, and is supremely frustrating.
Re:A (hopefully) unbiased opinion on Perl v. Pytho
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad you found the online Python documentation helpful. However, you are mistaken if you think it's "certainly better than the free documentation on Perl." The online (that is, man page) documentation for Perl is very good indeed, and is highly practical even for nontrivial tasks. I learned Perl largely by printing out these man pages and reading them through. I've never encountered better free documentation except maybe for erlang.
It's a good point in general, but this is not an edge case, and it isn't anywhere near that line. It depicts an interaction between two people that never took place. Take your example of the photograph of someone pointing a gun. It may be ambiguous whether cropping the target makes it misleading or not, but substituting something else for the target sure as heck is.
The article explained that the Sci-Fi Channel offered the producers a "lower fee than expected" to produce the fifth season--a fee low enough that the producers didn't think they could produce it. Although this wasn't mentioned in the article, it seems to me like a good idea would be, instead of trying to fund whole episodes or seasons using pledge funds from the viewer consortium campaign, why not use the viewer funds to cover the shortfall, which must be much less than it costs to fund a whole season.
I pledged $20 because I'd really like to see us shift from advertiser- and subscriber-funded programming (the former obsoleted by TiVo, etc., the second represents not very much money) to viewer-funded programming. Because with the ROI on advertising going down, and with subscriber fees not amounting to much, we're going to be stuck with a whole slate of unscripted, underproduced shows like I'm a Celebrity... et al. Which is fine if that's where your tastes lie, but I'd prefer to have choices.
Hang on, if you're writing something that is going to require a password to administer, as far as I'm concerned you're obligated to design a way to recover it. It might be complicated but it should be possible.
I guess if you're encrypting something then this might be unrecoverable; but in this case you would need to impress on the user the importance of preserving their (passphrase, key, whatever).
Re:Reminds me of a physics article
on
Game Theory at 190mph
·
· Score: 2, Informative
convention human/bicycle/boat racing,
Drafting is the central feature of bicycle racing, and in a different form temporary cooperation is common in running (though less for drafting and more to prevent yourself from getting jostled). It also happens in adventure racing, which is popular enough that its biggest event (the Eco-Challenge) is fairly well-known.
I liked it too, but you will find that it is among the least of his works--mostly because it is among the least personal. Reading it, I realized that Bryson was trying to like Australia, but they didn't really hit it off. How many times in Sunburned Country does he write some variant on "Australia is nice?" When you really like a place you need not reach for general platitudes.
It isn't that his previous books are negative (though in general he isn't afraid to draw attention to bad things) but he is far more invested. He didn't like City X, his experience there was bad, but he doesn't care if you like it or not. It's not a travel guide, it's travel writing; and his writing is at its best when it's personal. Check out A Walk in the Woods and Notes from a Small Island, highly personal, excellent books.
By the way, I do think The Lost Continent and Notes from a Big Country really are too negative; the latter mostly because you're reading a series of weekly columns all at once and in that context it seems like harping. I guess he was just in a bad mood for Continent.
I mean, how many people REALLY "Love" spaghetti? I hope it's not as many as keep saying it...
Wow, you really have it in for spaghetti, don't you? Like, you think spaghetti is okay but you don't want too many people feeling strongly about it?
And who are all these people declaring their love for spaghetti to you? Do you teach third grade? I don't think I've ever had anyone tell me they love spaghetti--though I have overheard someone hating pizza, and honestly, what the hell is that?
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose I should have pointed out IANALE (either)--hopefully readers will take any /. mouth-shooting with a grain of appropriate seasoning.
Your suggestion is excellent--I think removing this ambiguity would be a good addition to the FDL. And making this addition would affect the previous works under discussion since you can usually use a later version of an FSF license. It's a far better suggestion than "scrap all documentation released under the FDL."
But if you want to copy a bunch of someone else's manual into your own, surely it isn't "onerous" (term used by the poster to whom I replied) to include the invariant section? "A bunch" in this case meaning "more than is covered by fair use."
And whether a page or two would constitute fair use depends in part on the size of manual. One page of a two-page manual certainly isn't fair use. A page of a 500-page technical manual probably is. Of course there's a gray area there in the middle somewhere, but if we relax and try to act reasonably, it doesn't seem a real problem to me.
Deceptive how?
From the FDL:
and:
The situation you describe is not possible.
The FDL doesn't cancel existing fair use doctrine--in general short excerpting or commenting on a copyrighted work is fine, just as you can quote a book in a review of it. If the excerpt's not short (namely if you are copying large parts of the manual) then I think it's reasonable to have to include invariant sections. Elsewhere on this thread I pointed out that excising something can change the meaning of the whole just as modifying something can.
A third solution for your excerpting would be to incorporate the other manual by reference ("see section 12 of the GNU make manual") or whatever.
Not to put words in your mouth, but I anticipate an objection on the basis: "who's to know what fair use is?" There is a FAQ on fair use that helps, but the fact is that fair use is based on judgment, not absolute rule.
You know as well as I that the intent and purpose of a manual, book, document or article can be changed by excision as well as modification. If I wrote a piece of software, and I decided to use a non-OO methodology (because I think it's wrong for the task, maybe even any task), and included my justification in the manual as an invariant section, I would have a problem with a downstream distributor removing it. And I think I, not someone else, gets to decide which parts are essential. The meaning of the reference changes because the obvious question "Why isn't this a class?" isn't answered.
Since my example is far more likely than yours (and let's not forget that such a thing would be libel and subject to remedy in ways having nothing to do with the FDL) it seems like the right place to draw the line.
You'll see that the FSF is concerned with free documentation as well. The problem here is that some people are misunderstanding the invariant section provision of the FDL. As stated in that link, not every piece of writing is the same thing as software. The FDL insists that all the technical instructions be freely modifiable so that someone who creates a derivative piece of software can also modify the manual to keep it accurate.
However, some parts of a manual might be literary or express an author's opinion. This might be a political opinion ("software should be free") or it could be a technical opinion ("monolithic kernels suck"). But whatever it is it doesn't make sense for the creator of a derivative manual to change those opinions--that would be lying about the original author's intent.
The FDL recognizes that an author may have the need to guard these sections (remember, they can't have anything to do with the instructions to use the program). It doesn't make the manual any less free.
Of course. Look, if you write an article that says "I don't think you should use Microsoft software because they don't provide freedom to users," it doesn't make sense that someone else can create a "derivative" article that says "I think you should use Microsoft software because who cares about software freedom anyway?" The invariant sections we're talking about fall into that category, they are like articles--they can't be part of the technical instructions to use the software.
The FDL has this provision because it recognizes that not every kind of writing is the same as software, or the strict instructions to use the software. Documentation isn't any less free because you can't put position words in my mouth.
Well, relocating all the logic into a dozen separate function calls doesn't necessarily help readability either--sometimes you want to see a bit of sequential logic. There was some of that going on, and a couple of large here-documents.
But of course I'm not claiming that the problem can't be solved or even that there's anything wrong with Python, just that the poster was clearly baiting people with the claim that Perl coders don't like Python's indenting-based blocks because it doesn't allow them to write ugly code, which is clearly an insult.
I appreciate your offer to write some code for me though :)
Sorry, but this is just baiting. My problem with a lack of block endings is that it makes it hard to see a complete or incomplete block when there is a large one--this is not a theoretical problem but one I've faced more than once, and is supremely frustrating.
I'm glad you found the online Python documentation helpful. However, you are mistaken if you think it's "certainly better than the free documentation on Perl." The online (that is, man page) documentation for Perl is very good indeed, and is highly practical even for nontrivial tasks. I learned Perl largely by printing out these man pages and reading them through. I've never encountered better free documentation except maybe for erlang.
Read the article. The effect is caused by scattering and descattering energy, it doesn't have anything to do with gravity.
That's what I thought when I read the article. And not for nothing either I think, since it sounds like that's what it's modeling.
Well, I'm really looking forward to some help packing that knapsack.
It's a good point in general, but this is not an edge case, and it isn't anywhere near that line. It depicts an interaction between two people that never took place. Take your example of the photograph of someone pointing a gun. It may be ambiguous whether cropping the target makes it misleading or not, but substituting something else for the target sure as heck is.
The article explained that the Sci-Fi Channel offered the producers a "lower fee than expected" to produce the fifth season--a fee low enough that the producers didn't think they could produce it. Although this wasn't mentioned in the article, it seems to me like a good idea would be, instead of trying to fund whole episodes or seasons using pledge funds from the viewer consortium campaign, why not use the viewer funds to cover the shortfall, which must be much less than it costs to fund a whole season.
I pledged $20 because I'd really like to see us shift from advertiser- and subscriber-funded programming (the former obsoleted by TiVo, etc., the second represents not very much money) to viewer-funded programming. Because with the ROI on advertising going down, and with subscriber fees not amounting to much, we're going to be stuck with a whole slate of unscripted, underproduced shows like I'm a Celebrity... et al. Which is fine if that's where your tastes lie, but I'd prefer to have choices.
Read the whole thing, it's not going away. A sub with an unspecified signature will get a signature of (*@_), which is exactly what you want.
Rejoice!
Hang on, if you're writing something that is going to require a password to administer, as far as I'm concerned you're obligated to design a way to recover it. It might be complicated but it should be possible.
I guess if you're encrypting something then this might be unrecoverable; but in this case you would need to impress on the user the importance of preserving their (passphrase, key, whatever).
Is this what you mean?
The funny thing is, the Army probably would expend resources "reverse engineering" GPL code.
Mod parent up!
This is definitely the funniest of the "funny" responses.
Yes, he's been in Major Number's device files.
Drafting is the central feature of bicycle racing, and in a different form temporary cooperation is common in running (though less for drafting and more to prevent yourself from getting jostled). It also happens in adventure racing, which is popular enough that its biggest event (the Eco-Challenge) is fairly well-known.
I liked it too, but you will find that it is among the least of his works--mostly because it is among the least personal. Reading it, I realized that Bryson was trying to like Australia, but they didn't really hit it off. How many times in Sunburned Country does he write some variant on "Australia is nice?" When you really like a place you need not reach for general platitudes.
It isn't that his previous books are negative (though in general he isn't afraid to draw attention to bad things) but he is far more invested. He didn't like City X, his experience there was bad, but he doesn't care if you like it or not. It's not a travel guide, it's travel writing; and his writing is at its best when it's personal. Check out A Walk in the Woods and Notes from a Small Island, highly personal, excellent books.
By the way, I do think The Lost Continent and Notes from a Big Country really are too negative; the latter mostly because you're reading a series of weekly columns all at once and in that context it seems like harping. I guess he was just in a bad mood for Continent.
Wow, you really have it in for spaghetti, don't you? Like, you think spaghetti is okay but you don't want too many people feeling strongly about it?
And who are all these people declaring their love for spaghetti to you? Do you teach third grade? I don't think I've ever had anyone tell me they love spaghetti--though I have overheard someone hating pizza, and honestly, what the hell is that?